Wildlife Promise » agriculturehttp://blog.nwf.org
The National Wildlife Federation's blogFri, 31 Jul 2015 19:00:24 +0000en-UShourly1http://wordpress.org/?v=4.2.3How the Brazilian Beef Industry is Helping Protect Wildlife Habitat in the Amazonhttp://blog.nwf.org/2015/05/how-the-brazilian-beef-industry-is-helping-protect-wildlife-habitat-in-the-amazon/
http://blog.nwf.org/2015/05/how-the-brazilian-beef-industry-is-helping-protect-wildlife-habitat-in-the-amazon/#commentsMon, 18 May 2015 12:52:04 +0000http://blog.nwf.org/?p=106582The National Wildlife Federation (NWF) and the University of Wisconsin-Madison (UW-M) recently announced the beta launch of a new website and the publication of a new study, highlighting the effectiveness of the market-driven “Zero-Deforestation Cattle Agreements” in the Brazilian Amazon.

The Brazilian Amazon provides a wide range of ecosystem benefits, including habitat for iconic tropical species such as jaguars and macaws, as well as seasonal homes for migratory birds, such as the peregrine falcon and blackpoll warbler that seek sanctuary in the rainforest during the frigid winter months in the U.S.

The large-scale expansion of the cattle herd into the Brazilian Amazon has come at great environmental cost, as enormous tracts of tropical forests have been cut, burned, and converted to pastures. From 1993 to 2013, over 74 million acres of forest was cleared in the Brazilian Amazon biome, an area larger than the state of Arizona. Cattle occupy over two-thirds of all deforested land in this region, and in 2013, there were more than 60 million cattle living in the biome.

Legal compliance has typically been poor in the cattle sector, and efforts aimed at reforming land-use practices have largely been ineffective. However, this trend has changed significantly in recent years. A combination of supply chain interventions, including commitments to zero-deforestation production, and government policies have helped reduce the rates of deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon by over 80% in the past decade. Continued support from responsible companies throughout the supply chain is providing critical support for a range of solutions that are helping sever the links between cattle and forest destruction in the Amazon once and for all.

Zero-Deforestation Cattle Agreements

In 2009, pressure from international retailers and brands, environmental groups, and the federal government, led the largest meatpackers in Brazil to make public commitments to stop directly sourcing cattle from ranches with deforestation and illegal activity. These agreements are helping to reduce deforestation driven by the expansion of cattle ranching in the Brazilian Amazon, and in doing so, are safeguarding critical wildlife habitat and biodiversity.

Conservation Letters Study

The study published in Conservation Letters, “Did Ranchers and Slaughterhouses Respond to Zero-Deforestation Agreements in the Brazilian Amazon?” was led by Dr. Holly Gibbs at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, with a team of colleagues in the U.S. and Brazil including NWF and Imazon, a leading Brazilian NGO. Researchers analyzed these agreements using satellite-based property maps, field surveys with ranchers, and purchase transaction information between ranchers and slaughterhouses. The team found that the “Zero-Deforestation Agreements” prompted ranchers to swiftly register their properties in an environmental registry, led slaughterhouses to actively block purchases from ranches with recent deforestation, and helped reduce deforestation rates among supplying ranches.

The effective implementation of these agreements is in stark contrast to what is often a slow, lethargic, and time-lagged process for law enforcement efforts to bear fruit. The changes in behavior documented by Dr. Gibbs and her team represent a huge win for tropical forest conservation, wildlife habitat, and biodiversity. Support for zero-deforestation production from the major meatpacking companies has had a substantial impact, helping ensure that critical wildlife habitats are safeguarded.

Despite these significant achievements, there are still major loopholes in the agreements, which may diminish the outcomes for forest conservation, and jeopardize the fate of the wildlife habitat and biodiversity in this region. The new website, A Path Towards Zero-Deforestation Cattle, highlights solution-oriented options to help address these issues.

NEW Website

A Path Towards Zero-Deforestation Cattle, offers an interactive way to learn about cattle ranching in the Brazilian Amazon, market links for products such as beef and leather, and the “Zero-Deforestation Agreements”. The site aims to showcase how market-driven initiatives are supporting effective solutions for verified zero-deforestation production. The site also highlights ways that supply chain actors, including ranchers, meatpackers, retailers and brands, as well as government, banks and investors, and even consumers, can support continuous improvement. Recommendations are included on the site for all these actors to help ensure that cattle products sourced from this region do not contribute to the loss of tropical forests and the continued destruction of critical wildlife habitat.

]]>http://blog.nwf.org/2015/05/how-the-brazilian-beef-industry-is-helping-protect-wildlife-habitat-in-the-amazon/feed/0Songbirds, Migration and Soy: What’s the Connection?http://blog.nwf.org/2015/04/songbirds-migration-and-soy-whats-the-connection/
http://blog.nwf.org/2015/04/songbirds-migration-and-soy-whats-the-connection/#commentsMon, 27 Apr 2015 19:09:40 +0000http://blog.nwf.org/?p=105741Spring season is now in full swing, with bluebells blooming and daffodils dancing. And, even sweeter, there is the sound of songbirds singing.

Now is peak migration time for many of these songbirds and they and other neotropical migrants are finally returning north to their breeding grounds – your backyards and gardens included! Bird lovers and wildlife gardeners can plant native trees, shrubs and wildflowers to feed and provide nesting spots for birds close to home, but what about the state of the habitat these same birds need when they fly south? Many of these birds overwinter in the Amazon.

These species depend on forested habitats for food and shelter, but forests across the globe are disappearing at an alarming rate. About 30-37 million acres of forest are lost each year, the equivalent of 36 football fields per minute!

In the Amazon, large scale agriculture is one of the main driving forces of deforestation. These agricultural goods are used to produce much of our food, clothing, and personal care products – from leather handbags and shoes to beef jerky and lip balm. This also includes soy used in animal feed in Europe and Asia, which ends up as nuggets and sausages in grocery stores and restaurants around the world.

However, there is some good news for our migratory friends and for their forested homes down south.

NWF is leading the charge to help promote forest-friendly production for the key agricultural goods that are produced in the Brazilian Amazon. Just recently, NWF experts co-authored a new study that highlighted the effectiveness of a forest-friendly initiative focused on soy, known as the Soy Moratorium. The Moratorium was the first voluntary zero-deforestation agreement in the tropics, and it prevents major traders from selling soy that is linked to deforestation in the Amazon.

This agreement has been incredibly effective at safeguarding critical wildlife habitat against deforestation for soy in the Brazilian Amazon, thus helping to ensure that our migratory friends have a place to call home during the cold winter months in the United States.

According to the study, without the Soy Moratorium, almost 5 million acres of Amazon forest could be legally cleared for soy. In other words, 5 million acres of habitat for migratory birds could be lost. So, this is a big victory for our wildlife. Additionally, this new study helps reinforce the position that NWF has supported for years: maintaining and strengthening the Soy Moratorium (and other forest-friendly initiatives) is the best strategy to reduce agriculture-related deforestation and protect our wildlife.

While you work to improve wildlife habitat at home through our Garden for Wildlife program, we are also working to protect wildlife habitats around the world. You can join us in this effort by reaching out to the retailers and manufacturers of your favorite products to ask questions like: “Does your company have a policy on zero-deforestation?” and “From where do you source your raw ingredients?” Help start the conversation at the local level. Every little bit counts and, when the homes of our migratory friends are at stake, we need to do all we can to help save their habitats.

]]>http://blog.nwf.org/2015/04/songbirds-migration-and-soy-whats-the-connection/feed/0Why You Should Use No Till and Cover Crops This Planting Seasonhttp://blog.nwf.org/2015/04/why-you-should-use-no-till-and-cover-crops-this-planting-season/
http://blog.nwf.org/2015/04/why-you-should-use-no-till-and-cover-crops-this-planting-season/#commentsWed, 08 Apr 2015 17:23:44 +0000http://blog.nwf.org/?p=105684It’s that time of year again when farmers’ hearts begin to beat a little faster in anticipation of the spring planting rush. Across rural America, farmers excitedly prepare tractors and planters, finalize seed purchases and lock in crop insurance. The anticipation and hopefulness represent the eternal optimism farmers must possess. It is also quite ironic simply because of history and reality.

This heavy tilled soil has no soil structure, resulting in water polluting erosion, poor drainage, and slow warm up in spring. NWF Photo by Ryan Stockwell

For years, farmers have held onto optimism in spite of the often recurring realities of planting season. Yes, there are those years in which planting goes just as we hope. More often though, farmers experience delays, often related to weather. Delayed planting, planting in poor field conditions, or outright prevention of planting can quickly stress out even the most optimistic farmer. I, for one, have heard stressed farmers cuss a blue streak that would make a sailor blush.

While many farmers blame their stress on the weather, the truth is that for many, their stress is born of their own doing. Conventional practice of heavy and repeated tillage and removal of all residue have degraded soils of their structure and soil organic matter, the two most important factors for creating soil resilient to weather. To some extent, one cannot blame them.

This no till field has soil structure and drainage, allowing faster warm up in spring, more even crop emergence, and more consistent yields with less headache all while reducing erosion and protecting water quality. NWF Photo by Ryan Stockwell

Entering my fifth year of no till and cover crops, I have learned that these soil health practices are providing an added bonus of mental health for me. My healthy soil has improving structure and biology. It quickly drains away excess moisture while fields degraded by tillage and residue removal lack any drainage capacity. In healthy soils, water percolates down into the subsoil. In degraded soils, water ponds at the surface and soil takes longer to dry out and warm up. With poor drainage and soil structure, farmers must wait longer for good weather and have shorter windows of opportunity to accomplish fieldwork.

Yes, crop insurance has alleviated some of the risk and worry with weather, but taking a prevent plant payment is far inferior to successfully planting a crop. After all, establishing a crop while maintaining your sanity provides the foundation for the excitement experienced this time of year.

University of Wisconsin research confirms that in cold and/or wet climates, no till with cover crops speeds up soil warm up, a vital component to on-time planting and successful crops. Chart from the University of Wisconsin

Good news! A recent study from the Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences measured how much carbon can be sequestered by cover crops. Researchers found that – if we all stepped up our efforts to increase cover crop adoption – cover crops could offset 8 percent of carbon emissions created by agriculture worldwide. In addition, cover crops could keep sequestering at that level for about 150 years before the soil was carbon saturated and couldn’t hold any more.

So what are cover crops, exactly?

Cover cropping is the practice of planting a second, unharvested crop in coordination with the cash crop to prevent erosion and nutrient loss. Farmers grow cover crops in a variety of ways, including growing them year round as a living mulch, planting after harvest or intercropping by growing the cover between rows of the cash crop.

The benefits of cover crops are becoming more and more familiar among farmers and the rest of the agriculture community. Cover crops do all these great things:

Crimson clover. Photo by Christine Mason

Cut fertilizer costs

Reduce the need for herbicides and other pesticides

Improve yields by enhancing soil health

Prevent soil erosion

Conserve soil moisture

Protect water quality

But cover crops also have hidden climate benefits! Who knew?

Cover crops increase soil organic matter, including soil organic carbon. Simply put, cover crops make soil healthy and healthy soil sucks up carbon like a sponge – aka sequestering. When carbon is trapped in the soil, its power is used for good and not evil.

Agriculture is responsible for 10 percent of greenhouse gases overall, so any offset would be welcome. We don’t need to keep our heads in the sand about climate change when we can find solutions in the soil.

]]>http://blog.nwf.org/2015/04/are-cover-crops-an-underground-climate-change-solution/feed/0Forest 500: Powerbrokers With The Greatest Potential To Reduce Deforestationhttp://blog.nwf.org/2015/02/forest-500-powerbrokers-with-the-greatest-potential-to-reduce-deforestation/
http://blog.nwf.org/2015/02/forest-500-powerbrokers-with-the-greatest-potential-to-reduce-deforestation/#commentsWed, 11 Feb 2015 17:37:22 +0000http://blog.nwf.org/?p=103825Global Canopy Programme (GCP), with support from NWF, recently released the Forest 500, a ranking of the 500 most powerful organizations and people with the greatest potential to reduce deforestation. This project is an integral part of the global effort to protect forests and the wildlife that live there.

Have you ever wondered if the products you consume are destroying the wildlife that you love?

Knowingly or unknowingly, we have all purchased products at one time or another that have contained (or still do contain) ingredients linked to forest destruction. This generates billions of dollars in revenue for companies, but costs trillions in damage each year – destroying critical wildlife habitat and jeopardizing biodiversity in ecological hotspots like the rainforests of South America and Indonesia where iconic species such as jaguars and orangutans live.

The majority of deforestation today is caused by large-scale agriculture, for a handful of globally traded commodities: soybeans, palm oil, beef, leather, timber and pulp and paper. Through complex supply chains, these raw ingredients find their way into nearly half of all the products in our supermarkets and into nearly every aspect of our lives.

“Deforestation is in our chocolate and our toothpaste, our animal feed and our textbooks, our buildings and our furniture, our investments and our pensions”, says Mario Rautner, manager of the GCP’s program on drivers of deforestation.

Forest 500

The Forest 500 project (which covers 250 companies in 42 countries, as well as governments, financial institutions, and other influential stakeholders) assesses the policies of the powerbrokers with the biggest influence over the commodity supply chains driving tropical deforestation. It identifies the key players who have made commitments to reduce their impacts on forests as well as those that, so far, have lagged behind. This project will help maintain pressure on leading companies, identify where more work is needed and encourage those who are yet to act to commit to addressing deforestation.

As a group, the 250 companies included in the Forest 500 (one-fifth of which are U.S. companies) are falling well short of adopting, let alone implementing, policies that support deforestation-free products. While some companies are performing remarkably well, the overall average score is only 29 points (out of a potential 100 points). In addition, only 7% of the companies in the Forest 500 have a zero deforestation policy.

Continued support from the leading companies and action from those companies that have been lagging in their efforts will be critical to foster deforestation-free products. It’s important these companies know that we, as their customers, value deforestation-free ingredients in all of our products, as our choices have a direct impact on the wildlife we all love.

If you care about the fate of tropical rainforests and the amazing wildlife that live there, help show your support for deforestation-free products by joining the conversation and liking us on Facebook.

A new study, titled Brazil’s Soy Moratorium, published in the journal Science shows that the Soy Moratorium has dramatically reduced the amount of deforestation linked to soy production in the Brazilian Amazon, protecting valuable rainforest and the wildlife that live there.

According to the paper, whose authors include researchers from the U.S. and Brazil as well as policy experts from the National Wildlife Federation, the Amazon Soy Moratorium (a voluntary initiative in place since 2006) has been far more effective at stopping deforestation for soy than government policy alone.

Prior to the Soy Moratorium, about 30% of soy planted in the Amazon was directly replacing forests, but under the current protections, it has fallen to less than 1%,” explains lead author Holly Gibbs from the University of Wisconsin-Madison.

It is also interesting to note that, since the Moratorium was adopted, Brazilian exports of soybeans have more than doubled – a true win-win outcome for business and the environment.

This new study highlights the tremendous benefits of the Amazon Soy Moratorium, not only in terms of farmer compliance, but as a remarkably effective tool to prevent deforestation and protect critical wildlife habitat in the world’s largest tropical forest.

The Amazon is home to some of the most spectacular wildlife in the world, including elusive jungle cats such as the ocelot, powerful raptors such as the harpy eagle, and colorful reptiles such as the yellow-footed tortoise. These iconic tropical species, along with many others, rely on forested habitats for their survival; and as this study documents the Soy Moratorium has been incredibly effective at safeguarding these critical wildlife habitats against deforestation for soy in the Brazilian Amazon.

The Soy Moratorium is due to end in May next year, but NWF and the paper’s co-authors are calling for it to continue, because government policies alone will not be enough to stop all deforestation for soy.

“This study shows that the Moratorium is playing an important role in preventing deforestation for soy and therefore maintaining and strengthening it is the best strategy to protect forests and wildlife,” says Nathalie Walker, co-author and a Senior Manager at NWF.

Background

The Amazon Soy Moratorium is an agreement among major soybean traders to not purchase soy grown on land that was deforested after 2006 in the Brazilian Amazon. The Moratorium was the first voluntary zero-deforestation agreement in the tropics, and it set the stage for work on other forest-risk commodities, such as beef and leather in Brazil, and palm oil in Malaysia and Indonesia.

New Research Findings

According to the findings reported in this new study, the Soy Moratorium (a voluntary initiative) has been far more effective in reducing deforestation than government policy alone. In fact, soy farmers in the Brazilian Amazon were found to be about five times more likely to violate national environmental laws (i.e. the Brazilian Forest Code) than the Soy Moratorium.

In addition, this study concluded that policies in Brazil (including the Forest Code) are not sufficient replacements and are unlikely to be fully implemented by the time the Amazon Soy Moratorium is expected to end in 2016. Instead of relying on less effective national policies, this study calls for a further extension and strengthening of the Soy Moratorium.

Deforestation monitoring should be expanded so that all soy-producing farms in the Amazon are covered. This would include soy production in rural settlement regions and farms located in indigenous territories, both of which are not currently covered by the Soy Moratorium. In addition, the Soy Moratorium (which currently only covers soy produced in the Amazon Biome) should be expanded to include other soy producing regions in Brazil, such as the Cerrado – a tropical wooded grassland region, teeming with wildlife, which has experienced large-scale soy expansion in recent years.

“What we found is that there are large areas of already cleared land suitable for soy production both in the Amazon and Cerrado, and that these areas were often cleared many years ago and would be enough to triple the current soy production,” says Praveen Noojipady, co-author and remote sensing scientist at NWF.

By directing soy production to these non-forest areas, an expansion of the Soy Moratorium would not stifle the growth of the economically important soy industry.

Overall, this new study helps reinforce the position that NWF has supported for years: maintaining and strengthening the Soy Moratorium is the best strategy for reducing soy-related deforestation.

Through our outreach to retailers, manufacturers, and agricultural traders, NWF will continue to highlight the effectiveness of the Soy Moratorium and emphasize the benefits and impacts of expanding the scope of its coverage, as well as the gaps and shortcomings of alternative options.

Continued support from companies that purchase soy (and other forest-risk commodities) will be critical to foster deforestation-free production in Brazil and elsewhere in the tropics. It’s important these companies know that we, as their customers, value deforestation-free ingredients in our personal care and food products, as our choices have a direct impact on the wildlife we all love.

]]>http://blog.nwf.org/2015/01/new-study-co-authored-by-nwf-shows-amazon-soy-moratorium-saves-more-rainforest/feed/1Researchers Recognize Conservation Agriculture’s Benefitshttp://blog.nwf.org/2014/11/researchers-recognize-conservation-agricultures-benefits/
http://blog.nwf.org/2014/11/researchers-recognize-conservation-agricultures-benefits/#commentsFri, 07 Nov 2014 16:56:29 +0000http://blog.nwf.org/?p=101451Recently, agronomists at North Dakota State University released new fertilization recommendations for corn. Normally, this isn’t news. Land grant universities have been providing fertilizer recommendations for years and also periodically update them based on new research. So what is the big deal this time? For the first time, a land grant university has recognized the benefits of a conservation practice to productivity and is changing recommended fertilizer rates accordingly.

A conventionally planted corn field increases the loss of fertilizer, raising costs for farmers and creating environmental problems down stream.

Historically, fertilizer recommendations have made a couple of big assumptions. First, that everyone tills the soil (and doesn’t use no till). And second, that soil does not change in response to how it is managed. Under these assumptions, the guidelines could be simple and straightforward (provide fertilizer recommendations in a tillage system), albeit failing to recognize significant errors.

With the updated NDSU fertilizer guidelines, researchers have begun to correct those assumptions. Not only did researchers develop fertilizer rates for producers using no till, the rates indicate that soils do in fact respond differently to different practices. How else does one explain the fact that NDSU gives long term no till a 60lb. nitrogen fertilizer credit on corn and 50 lb. nitrogen fertilizer credit going into small grains?

The credit reflects not only the higher soil organic matter in no till soils, after all, it doesn’t get lost due to tillage, it also reflects higher levels of microorganisms vital to aiding soil in storing nutrients, but also converting them to make them available to crops. Producers gain more productive soil while reducing their operating costs (in both fuel, equipment time, and now fertilizer). These new fertilizer rates will save producers over $35 per acre, just for using long term no till.

Soybeans planted using no till into wheat residue, reducing fertilizer costs for farmers and providing environmental benefits to everyone.

This is great news for producers, but just as importantly, everyone gains right along with these innovative farmers. When farmers can trim their fertilizer use while maintaining or improving yields, and at the same time reduce fertilizer loss to our lakes, rivers, and streams, we enjoy benefits across the board. The resulting improvement in water quality means better drinking water for millions of Americans. It also means better wildlife habitat leading to more opportunities to enjoy wildlife for millions of Americans while also stimulating a multi-billion dollar outdoor recreation economy.

This is a great step in the right direction. I encourage other land grant universities to follow NDSU’s lead and update their fertilizer guidelines to recognize for the improved nutrient holding and delivery capacity of soils under long term no till. In fact, don’t stop there. Other practices, not just no till, improve the soil’s productivity. Cover crops and diverse crop rotations also boost soil organic matter and soil microbe populations vital to a healthy and productive soil. And like adding no till, cover crops and crop rotations provide numerous benefits from wildlife habitat to carbon sequestration to water quality.

Despite this proven record of success, the Moratorium is on the endangered list. The Brazilian soy industry plans to abandon the current protections that the Moratorium provides at the end of this year, putting Amazon forests at risk once again from soybean expansion.

Many experts predict that if the current protections are eliminated, soy-driven deforestation will shoot up, yet again – nearly 20% of Amazon deforestation was driven by soy before the Moratorium, yet under the current protections, deforestation for soy has fallen to less than 1%.

The end of the Moratorium will undermine years of hard work and dedication to protect forests in the Amazon; and it would have devastating impacts on wildlife habitat, biodiversity and climate change.

National Wildlife Federation is dedicated to protecting tropical forests and wildlife habitat; and we are working to help ensure that the protections, currently in place under the Soy Moratorium are safeguarded and remain in place as long as they are needed.

Background

In 2006, following an influential NGO report and widespread media attention that linked soy production with deforestation and forced labor in the Brazilian Amazon, the Brazilian soy industry implemented an innovative voluntary solution called the Amazon Soy Moratorium; it was a pledge to not trade any soy grown on recently (post-2006) deforested land. The Brazilian government has played an important role in helping to identify new areas of soy arising from deforestation, allowing the industry to avoid buying soy from non-compliant farms. This process has had an important deterrent effect, discouraging farmers from clearing additional land for soy – only a very small proportion of farmers are breaching the terms of the Moratorium.

The soy industry claims that because there is a new Forest Code in Brazil, it is time for the government to be responsible for controlling deforestation. However, the new Forest Code is only in the very early stages of being put into action and it will be many years before it is fully effective. In addition, the law does not prevent all deforestation. Many international companies have zero deforestation policies, so the law alone will not be enough to allow them to responsibly source soy from the Amazon.

Efforts to Safeguard the Moratorium

National Wildlife Federation has been highlighting the negative consequences of prematurely ending the Soy Moratorium and the gaps that exist between what the law is doing versus the effectiveness of the Moratorium. We have asked many global consumer facing brands to weigh in on the importance of the Soy Moratorium, to send a message to soy producers and traders that a large portion of the market wants guarantees that they are not buying soy from recently deforested lands – this cannot be assured under the new Forest Code.

At the recent United Nations Climate Summit, the New York Declaration on Forests was endorsed by a wide range of companies – setting out goals to address deforestation and promote restoration. In addition, Cargill (one of the largest agricultural commodity traders in the world) expanded their deforestation-free commitment to include the entire range of forest risk commodities, including soy. McDonalds also stepped up to demonstrate leadership on these issues by explicitly supporting the Amazon Soy Moratorium.

National Wildlife Federation is working with our partners to call to save the Amazon Soy Moratorium to ensure that soy does not once again become a leading driver of deforestation, habitat destruction and biodiversity loss.

]]>http://blog.nwf.org/2014/10/the-amazon-soy-moratorium-is-under-threat/feed/0Romance and “Reality” in Rural Americahttp://blog.nwf.org/2014/09/romance-and-reality-in-rural-america/
http://blog.nwf.org/2014/09/romance-and-reality-in-rural-america/#commentsWed, 24 Sep 2014 17:47:52 +0000http://blog.nwf.org/?p=100383Did you hear? Chris Soules, the heartthrob fan-favorite farmer from last season’s The Bachelorette will be next season’s Bachelor. Chris stole the hearts of the viewing audience with his family-first, country charm and a romantic hometown date complete with horseback ride and picnic in a field on his Iowa farm.* Check out the “Good Morning America” video introducing this bachelor farmer below.

So, what does “The Bachelor” have to do with the environment?

When the new season of “The Bachelor” airs on ABC in January, 2015, America will get to see a lot more of Chris, more of Iowa and more of the rural lifestyle — albeit through the lens of reality television. Sometimes we romanticize life on the farm with movies like “Field of Dreams” and other times we vilify agriculture altogether with movies like “Promised Land.” The truth is, reality is somewhere in between: farming can be rewarding but never easy.

My report, The Growing Business of Cover Crops highlights some of the exciting entrepreneurial opportunities springing up in rural America. With more farmers moving toward future friendly practices like no-till and cover cropping, more farms need the support businesses like crop advisers, seed and custom harvesting. These jobs probably won’t make you a millionaire or a reality television star, but you can make a living, create jobs, improve your local rural economy and be a part of the sustainable agriculture movement.

* I must confess, I’ve never seen the show. But I’ll tune in this January to see who is ready for the Iowa life!

]]>http://blog.nwf.org/2014/09/romance-and-reality-in-rural-america/feed/0Myth Busted: Cover Crops and Soil Temperatureshttp://blog.nwf.org/2014/09/myth-busted-cover-crops-and-soil-temperatures/
http://blog.nwf.org/2014/09/myth-busted-cover-crops-and-soil-temperatures/#commentsThu, 04 Sep 2014 18:38:30 +0000http://blog.nwf.org/?p=99775We’ve all probably heard the old fact that cover crops result in colder, wetter soils. It seems this myth has been around amazingly longer than cover crops themselves. It is likely an extension of another long-held “truism” that no till (see also: zero till, direct seeding, never till) results in colder and wetter soils. Ask just about any farmer, or at least those who till, and they will recite that truism like it was Gospel. To be fair, there is some older scientific literature suggesting cover crops reduce soil temperature.[1]

Being relatively new to no till and cover crops, I have the advantage of not holding onto prior assumptions.

Soybeans enjoying warmer soils thanks to no till and cover crops. No till and covers mean fewer pollutants leaving the field and contributing to hypoxic zones such as in the Gulf of Mexico. Photo credit: Ryan Stockwell

And, being human, I tend to put more credibility in conclusions from those who speak with experience. Too often the only ones saying that no till and covers make soil wet and cold are the people who have never tried either.

To get to the bottom of this I began taking soil temperature readings starting in April. Using a protocol established by Dave Robison and Dan Perkins (Jasper County, IN SWCD, Youtube 2014 cover crops videos) every week I took soil temperature readings at random locations at 4 inch depth in my no till field with a winter-killed cover (radish), my neighbor’s fall tilled field across the fence row, and my lawn to provide a baseline. Here is a table with the results through early July.

As you see from the data, there is little scientific basis for the myth of colder, wetter soils in no till and/or cover crops. You may also note that, in fact, the data indicates more times in which the no till/cover cropped soils had higher temperatures. And it wasn’t, as I initially thought, a sampling error by sampling only in the morning or afternoon. Regardless of time of day, no till with covers enjoyed similar or slightly higher soil temperatures. Myth busted. Beyond that simple conclusion though, are a few interesting details to point out. First, tilled soils had a temperature advantage in 3 out of 12 measurements (weeks 1, 6 and 8). Those measurements followed a fresh tillage pass that had not yet received a rain event. As soon as the soils received a rain (which is quite frequent during spring and summer in Wisconsin), the temperature advantage swung back in favor of no till and covers. Second, soil temps from the no till/covers were quite similar to the lawn soil temps. Average temps for lawn and no till/covers came in at 59.46 and 59.41 degrees, respectively, while the tilled field came in .74 degrees cooler at 58.67.

Now, just how do we explain the myth and the reality?

Understanding old ways of viewing soil helps explain the propagation of the myth. Until recently, the overwhelming approach to soil was to recognize only that which we could observe with our own eyes. Thus, most people only recognized the soil surface. Through this perspective, the only way soil dried out or warmed up was through the sun’s radiant energy striking the soil surface. Black soil warmed up faster than light-colored soil. Residue shading the soil would result in less radiant energy hitting the soil. That all makes sense so far. So why didn’t my neighbor’s tilled soil (6 tillage passes) have a soil temperature advantage over my no tilled soil with cover crop residue?

It turns out, the soil surface is only half of the equation (or less). Until now, we have ignored what goes on in the soil; the science we cannot easily observe. In simple terms, scientists are now beginning to account for many other factors such as drainage, structure, and biology. Thanks to no till and cover crop roots, I am slowly breaking through the plow pan located about 16 inches below the surface. That plow pan, intensely present in my neighbor’s soil, prevents excess moisture from draining away. Thus, if one chooses to not address plow pan, one must rely on tillage as a means of aerating the soil. However, repeated tillage breaks down soil structure, further decaying the soil’s ability to move excess water. The end result is not only a tillage treadmill, but that no tilled soils shed excess water much easier, and dry soils warm up much faster and easier than wet soils. Soil biology may also be a factor. With no till and covers, the micro-organisms that normally do not survive tillage and long periods lacking plant roots have a chance to grow. That growing population and the process of digesting and converting minerals and nutrients may actually warm the soil. Note again from the data the fact that the no till and lawn (technically also no till) both typically had higher soil temperatures than the tilled field.

Unfortunately for conservation, water quality, wildlife, and the climate, myths like these have inhibited and delayed adoption of no till and cover crops. But it isn’t just wildlife or water quality that suffers. Misconceptions and assumptions have led farmers to continue soil abuse, costing them time and money now while degrading the long term health and productivity of their soil.